What do people think would have happened if there was no 2006 coup?
Oh, that’s simple. We would all have been united in the fight against the authoritarian Thaksin government. Not to worry we will probably have this next year. It will be Papa Doc Shinawatra and his Tonton Macoute dressed in red.
Like comedy is easily tragedy, a blessing can easily be a curse. Division has always been the case, not just since the 2006 coup. Perhaps division is now more expressly observed, but making too much of these sorts of polemics only serve to propagate division. Attributing the 2006 coup with credit for so much denies a lot of other contemporary circumstances. Like, for instance, the prospect of the Son taking over, the role of the internet in informing Thai political consciousness, that the Thai economy was on the brink of becoming a new tiger, and then having that not happen for labourers… people being robbed of hope cannot be reduced simply to the demon Thaksin or the demon Prem. What do people think would have happened if there was no 2006 coup?
Not blocked on 3BB in Chiang Mai. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, accessing NM was creaky/slow a week or so ago* – normal now.
*FWIW, page display seemed to get hung up on the Google element.
—————
In response to middlepath (#6) – surely Nich’s penultimate paragraph tells you all you need to know: “Nonetheless, any discussion of such issues still sails very close to the prevailing legal winds in Thailand. It takes a certain kind of courage to discuss King Bhumibol’s hospitalisation”
I currently live in Thailand and don’t want to have that situation changed for me. Abhisit’s glib words about preventing abuse of the LM laws have proved totally hollow. Between his (at best) inaction and Prayuth’s “line in the sand” positioning it as a matter of national security, the subject has become a no-go area for anyone within reach of Thai law. This is not paranoia – it’s reality.
“The CRES [Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation] has resolved to absolutely prohibit rallies,” Gen Prayuth said.
“It is the image of Thailand. Do what civilised people do. If there is any problem or concern to report to foreign parties or the UN, they can file it in written form. They must not show up en masse or cause trouble before the eyes of foreigners. I think that is embarrassing.
“Whoever does that is doing a shameful thing and I warn it should not happen as it will be useless.”
Gen Prayuth said people would have to consider if submitting a request for the UN to investigate the deaths of those killed during the dispersal of the red shirt protests in April and May this year was appropriate.
The issue was an internal affair and the military had only followed the law. It not taken sides with any party.
“There are only two groups of Thai people: the good and the bad, normal people and outlaws. The bad and outlaws must be prosecuted, no matter what they do, and they can later defend themselves by legal means,” he said.
“All people, from their grandparents’ generation down, have been blessed by the royal institution. From past to present, Thailand has existed thanks to the royal institution and the royal institution still exists.
“So no matter what the political expression, do not involve the royal institution.”
The only one mentioning ‘the royal institution’ is Than Shwe himself. I mean General Prayuth himself.
Why is this post transformed into ICT blocking? Is there no comment on the question raised by PPT? The writer of this post is quiet on this matter of course….
Indications that New Mandala is/has been blocked have historically been difficult to pin down.
If I was designing a system for blocking foreign-based websites one thing I would insist on is ambiguity about the process and impact of various blocking approaches. I would make the entire system as apparently haphazard, imprecise and inconsistent as possible. In this way I think there is a degree of unrecognised cleverness in how Thailand’s Internet is currently managed.
As ever, I would be keen to hear from anyone who can shed more light on such matters.
I don’t have time to provide long answer to Ji’s argument that the military is more powerful than the monarchy, but a short one will suffice:
Had that been the case, would Ji have to flee the country?
What did he attack, that led to his flight? The military? A few months ago, a headline in Manager referred to Anuphong, the then Army’s C-in-C as “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕лр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕Цр╕┤р╕Б”. What happened? Nothing. In this country at the present time, you can say such thing, or worse. Can you do the same with the monarchy?
This short answer involved two closely related fundamentals which Ji never understand, despite claiming to be a Marxist.
First, the monarchy is NOT the King. (cf a very silly sentence above “Yet, the King’s power is a myth, created for ideological purposes by the ruling class, especially the Military.” – who say the power of the monarchy means the power of the king?) ALL of Ji’s writing about the monarchy present it as an individual, a frailed old man as we see today. This is not Marxist, not even a SOCIAL analysis. It’s crude empiricism.
(The monarchy is above all, an organization, or – if you’d like – a structure. the central structure of the current Thai state.)
Secondly, and this is very important, Ji NEVER understand “power”. As when he refers to the monarchy as the king (or a few of his immediate family members) all the time, when Ji speaks of “power”, he only means “ordering”, i.e. the capacity to order persons to do things. This, again, is crude empiricism.
If I, or better still, my organization, do somethings, from my and fellow members of the organization making speeches to all kinds of activities, and people cannot say anything critical of what we do, least they would be put in jail for a long time. What should this be called? Is this not power? It is definitely. Does any of the organizations and/or structures that make up the current Thai state have this same kind of power? No, nothing comes even close. I could go on to the issue of the Crown Property, the so-called Royal Projects, and the 24-7 propaganda on the merits of the monarchy on all communicative channels.
…………….
For over two years, Ji stubbornly insisted that the monarchy and the elected politicians like Thaksin are basically similar. Hence, his silly declaration of “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” (rejecting both) stance. (The phrase “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” is mine, but Ji adopted it himself in his numerous writings for over two years with pride.) Then in late 2008 he abruptly turned 180 degrees and started saying, as he is now, that the politician including Thaksin are at least elected by the people, and thus it is the duty of activists to defend them. Ji would do well to, at least once, ponder why did he get it seriously wrong, and make public auto-critique before embarking on this silly and dangerous new mistake about the issue of the monarchy.
……………..
Finally, Ji could also do well to take a serious study of Thai political history. Let me raise just one issue: since 14 Tula (1973) how many royal-appointed PMs we had, as against a military PM? General Kriangsak and Gen Prem who came to power successively in 1977 and 1980 were NOT really a military PM. Both, it is true, initially had power base in the military (Prem more than Kriangsak), but their real base overall were the monarchy and the parliament (the political parties). Later on, Suchinda tried against the tide of history to be PM himself, based on his control of the military. How long did he hold on to the post? What 14 Tula did, decisively and so far irreversibly, was to weaken the military politically to the point that it has never been able to be the leading actor of the state again, a situation that had expressed itself in the fact that there had not been a real military government again since Thanom-Praphat.
On the other hand, we now had since 1973, 3 or 4 “royal-appointed” PMs, Thanin, Prem (from the latter half of 1980), Anan (after May 1992) and Surayut after the 2006 coup. If the military is so powerful, why didn’t we see a military government after this last coup?
By the way, Prem himself who Ji is now, following the Red Shirts, calling “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”, why is he having this “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”-power? He was out of his PM job for 20 years, out of his military job even longer than that. What is his power now based on? Does any former military men have this same kind of power? (cf. the first of two fundamentals I said above regarding the monarchy is not the king.) Last, but not least, the so-called “р╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ар╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╣М”. Was it “activated” by the military?
…………….
I could go on, but I’ll stop now. The problem with Ji over the past ten years or so is he never really learned anything, neither Thai politics nor Marxism. Worse, he had this unenviable track records of clinging to wrong positions despite feeble arguments on his part. The so-called “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” above is just the latest. The issues of the role of Samak and Bangkok Post in 6 Tula earlier are of the same kind. Then, after refusing to think seriously or listen to better argument (and facts), he would suddenly turn around, adopting the previous positions of others that he just yesterday condemned as wrong, un-Marxist,etc, and then claimed – rather shamelessly – that his new positions were always his.
When murder and repression are committed in the King’s name, it is reasonable to expect that his popularity will suffer, at least amongst decent people.
Jenny, you needn’t demand Giles to substantiate that claim. Just dig up a copy of The King Never Smiles or The Revolutionary King (both banned in the Kingdom, of course, and both heavily annotated) and read away. Considering the military budget has doubled since 2006, and the fact that the number of active-duty generals has swelled from 750 to 1,100, Thailand’s military have become even more powerful since those books were published — not less.
As a resident of Isaan and living in the center of ‘red country’ I think I can say without fear of contradiction the love and respect for the royal family especially the King is as strong now as it ever was when I first started coming here over 20 years ago. For the Army chief to say that there is an anti monarchy, republican movement is utter nonsense. It is of course just a ploy to maintain a hard line against the ‘reds’.
The ‘red’ movement appears to be a strong as ever. The locals feel put down and frustrated, and therefore have ‘lost face’ which they bitterly resent. To say that this leads to anti monarchy I feel just isn’t true.
I feel that I should also add that they are very worried about His Majesty’s health.
I’m sure you’ve seen on The Irrawaddy website the relentless rants by Myanmar Patriots or Idiot as some people call him, completely delusional and cheerily tilting at windmills. Cracks me up every time. With friends like these the SPDC hardly needs enemies.
You’re right about the West. All talk and no action whatever else goes on behind the scenes. The moment they hear ‘elections’ they go all weak in the knees. While Messrs plan B & MP are busy castigating the West, things will suddenly blow up in the SPDC’s face inside the country pretty soon I reckon.
Other than NGO’s and adventurers I never saw any overt effort to assist the anti-government forces in Burma. If there are any ongoing covert activities being conducted, well, they’re covert, and we’ll probably never hear about them. Perhaps plan B is privy to some information he’d like to share with the class.
plan B has this unshakable idea in his head that “The West” conspires relentlessly to overthrow the SPDC. All I ever see is a lot of hand wringing and talking. That doesn’t seem to be shaking the pillars of the SPDC.
On other websites I see him railing against a certain book writer and “tri-continental” soldier (cracks me up every time I read that). Perhaps this is what is setting him off. A lot of ado about nothing.
This otherwise valid analysis is marred the usual clichéd revolutionary rant from Ji.
eg. :
1)”now a serious republican mood among millions of citizens.”
How can Ji possibly know this – in absence of a referendum ?
Also – he’s been outside Thailand for considerable time now – so his ability to know the current local scene has become limited.
2) “the revolutionary Peoples Party led by Pridi Panomyong relied too much on the Military rather than building a mass party to stage the revolution.”
Realistically – did Pridi have any choice – apart from the high-risk, very chancey strategy he adopted? Which included what now seem some pretty radical attempts : eg. nationalisations, State welfarism, land reform, and neutralism towards America’s build-up against Ho Chi Minh.
Pridi came to power through a small combination of bureaucrats and military, in a country which was one of the poorest and most backward socio-economically, in the world – and without much of that radicalisation generated by imperialism in almost every other Afro-Asian country.
Ji’s rant ignores this historical contxt.
3) Ji here continues treating the Military as if it is a unified monolith : it most certainly is n’t – as Ji himself has shown in some of his other, better writings.
Nick – further to your reporting that journalists invited to the briefing with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will have to submit their questions in advance – and that now Thai army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha has announced that no political (Red-Shirt) gatherings are allowed in the Thai capital during the visit but representatives can instead present a letter to the UN chief –
I’m sure many will find the General’s remarks extremely unnerving and worrisome. I’m almost inclined myself to put on a red shirt and go out and about just to defy his ‘authority’.
In short – the government will reduce his visit here to one big PR exercise for their benefit – instead of it being an open and free exercise in information gathering through talks with both government officials – Red-Shirt leaders – human rights organisations and interested media.
The fact that reporters will have their questions vetted in advance is obviously an attempt to shield him from any sensitive and embarrassing questions which would no doubt come his way concerning the government’s appalling human rights record and – more specifically – its treatment of Red-Shirt protesters earlier this year.
How dare those “pesky and nasty red-Shirts” stand-up to the sickening inequality – rampant corruption – and political and military oppression that now exists in this country and seek redress and attention from the UN Secretray-General.
The arrogance and contempt the authorities have for ordinary and decent Thai citizens who have very genuine and sincere reasons to protest the governments murderous actions – earlier this year – during Ban Ki-moon’s visit and hopefully attract his attention is ample evidence of the authoritarian tyranny that now exists in Thailand.
It’s equally impossible to measure and express, in cold numbers of statistics, the degree of love or hate afforded to King Bhumibol.
Similarly, it is rather unthinkable, for both Thais and foreigners living in Thailand and beyond, to back up Giles’ opinions in public or workplace without creeping fear of losing face, one’s standing in the society, freedom, and even life. On the other hand, demeaning comments are more than welcome. So much for democracy and freedom, Thai style.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
What do people think would have happened if there was no 2006 coup?
Oh, that’s simple. We would all have been united in the fight against the authoritarian Thaksin government. Not to worry we will probably have this next year. It will be Papa Doc Shinawatra and his Tonton Macoute dressed in red.
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
Like comedy is easily tragedy, a blessing can easily be a curse. Division has always been the case, not just since the 2006 coup. Perhaps division is now more expressly observed, but making too much of these sorts of polemics only serve to propagate division. Attributing the 2006 coup with credit for so much denies a lot of other contemporary circumstances. Like, for instance, the prospect of the Son taking over, the role of the internet in informing Thai political consciousness, that the Thai economy was on the brink of becoming a new tiger, and then having that not happen for labourers… people being robbed of hope cannot be reduced simply to the demon Thaksin or the demon Prem. What do people think would have happened if there was no 2006 coup?
Letter to Ban Ki-moon on human rights in Thailand
Will Mr Ki-moon see and understand Thailand as a land of national insecurity, peace and harmony by any violents means necessary??
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
Not blocked on 3BB in Chiang Mai. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, accessing NM was creaky/slow a week or so ago* – normal now.
*FWIW, page display seemed to get hung up on the Google element.
—————
In response to middlepath (#6) – surely Nich’s penultimate paragraph tells you all you need to know: “Nonetheless, any discussion of such issues still sails very close to the prevailing legal winds in Thailand. It takes a certain kind of courage to discuss King Bhumibol’s hospitalisation”
I currently live in Thailand and don’t want to have that situation changed for me. Abhisit’s glib words about preventing abuse of the LM laws have proved totally hollow. Between his (at best) inaction and Prayuth’s “line in the sand” positioning it as a matter of national security, the subject has become a no-go area for anyone within reach of Thai law. This is not paranoia – it’s reality.
Check out http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=834 – every bit as funny as disturbingly close to the truth…..
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
why “must” realise?
why not discover and analyse the evidence?
Thailand’s monarchy and divisiveness
General Prayuth has now taken over as Thai government strongman/spokesman :
The only one mentioning ‘the royal institution’ is Than Shwe himself. I mean General Prayuth himself.
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
Why is this post transformed into ICT blocking? Is there no comment on the question raised by PPT? The writer of this post is quiet on this matter of course….
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
That link is blocked on TOT in Chiang Mai too
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
Thanks for that, Dan,
Indications that New Mandala is/has been blocked have historically been difficult to pin down.
If I was designing a system for blocking foreign-based websites one thing I would insist on is ambiguity about the process and impact of various blocking approaches. I would make the entire system as apparently haphazard, imprecise and inconsistent as possible. In this way I think there is a degree of unrecognised cleverness in how Thailand’s Internet is currently managed.
As ever, I would be keen to hear from anyone who can shed more light on such matters.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
I don’t have time to provide long answer to Ji’s argument that the military is more powerful than the monarchy, but a short one will suffice:
Had that been the case, would Ji have to flee the country?
What did he attack, that led to his flight? The military? A few months ago, a headline in Manager referred to Anuphong, the then Army’s C-in-C as “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕лр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕Цр╕┤р╕Б”. What happened? Nothing. In this country at the present time, you can say such thing, or worse. Can you do the same with the monarchy?
This short answer involved two closely related fundamentals which Ji never understand, despite claiming to be a Marxist.
First, the monarchy is NOT the King. (cf a very silly sentence above “Yet, the King’s power is a myth, created for ideological purposes by the ruling class, especially the Military.” – who say the power of the monarchy means the power of the king?) ALL of Ji’s writing about the monarchy present it as an individual, a frailed old man as we see today. This is not Marxist, not even a SOCIAL analysis. It’s crude empiricism.
(The monarchy is above all, an organization, or – if you’d like – a structure. the central structure of the current Thai state.)
Secondly, and this is very important, Ji NEVER understand “power”. As when he refers to the monarchy as the king (or a few of his immediate family members) all the time, when Ji speaks of “power”, he only means “ordering”, i.e. the capacity to order persons to do things. This, again, is crude empiricism.
If I, or better still, my organization, do somethings, from my and fellow members of the organization making speeches to all kinds of activities, and people cannot say anything critical of what we do, least they would be put in jail for a long time. What should this be called? Is this not power? It is definitely. Does any of the organizations and/or structures that make up the current Thai state have this same kind of power? No, nothing comes even close. I could go on to the issue of the Crown Property, the so-called Royal Projects, and the 24-7 propaganda on the merits of the monarchy on all communicative channels.
…………….
For over two years, Ji stubbornly insisted that the monarchy and the elected politicians like Thaksin are basically similar. Hence, his silly declaration of “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” (rejecting both) stance. (The phrase “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” is mine, but Ji adopted it himself in his numerous writings for over two years with pride.) Then in late 2008 he abruptly turned 180 degrees and started saying, as he is now, that the politician including Thaksin are at least elected by the people, and thus it is the duty of activists to defend them. Ji would do well to, at least once, ponder why did he get it seriously wrong, and make public auto-critique before embarking on this silly and dangerous new mistake about the issue of the monarchy.
……………..
Finally, Ji could also do well to take a serious study of Thai political history. Let me raise just one issue: since 14 Tula (1973) how many royal-appointed PMs we had, as against a military PM? General Kriangsak and Gen Prem who came to power successively in 1977 and 1980 were NOT really a military PM. Both, it is true, initially had power base in the military (Prem more than Kriangsak), but their real base overall were the monarchy and the parliament (the political parties). Later on, Suchinda tried against the tide of history to be PM himself, based on his control of the military. How long did he hold on to the post? What 14 Tula did, decisively and so far irreversibly, was to weaken the military politically to the point that it has never been able to be the leading actor of the state again, a situation that had expressed itself in the fact that there had not been a real military government again since Thanom-Praphat.
On the other hand, we now had since 1973, 3 or 4 “royal-appointed” PMs, Thanin, Prem (from the latter half of 1980), Anan (after May 1992) and Surayut after the 2006 coup. If the military is so powerful, why didn’t we see a military government after this last coup?
By the way, Prem himself who Ji is now, following the Red Shirts, calling “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”, why is he having this “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”-power? He was out of his PM job for 20 years, out of his military job even longer than that. What is his power now based on? Does any former military men have this same kind of power? (cf. the first of two fundamentals I said above regarding the monarchy is not the king.) Last, but not least, the so-called “р╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ар╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╣М”. Was it “activated” by the military?
…………….
I could go on, but I’ll stop now. The problem with Ji over the past ten years or so is he never really learned anything, neither Thai politics nor Marxism. Worse, he had this unenviable track records of clinging to wrong positions despite feeble arguments on his part. The so-called “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” above is just the latest. The issues of the role of Samak and Bangkok Post in 6 Tula earlier are of the same kind. Then, after refusing to think seriously or listen to better argument (and facts), he would suddenly turn around, adopting the previous positions of others that he just yesterday condemned as wrong, un-Marxist,etc, and then claimed – rather shamelessly – that his new positions were always his.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
When murder and repression are committed in the King’s name, it is reasonable to expect that his popularity will suffer, at least amongst decent people.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
Jenny, you needn’t demand Giles to substantiate that claim. Just dig up a copy of The King Never Smiles or The Revolutionary King (both banned in the Kingdom, of course, and both heavily annotated) and read away. Considering the military budget has doubled since 2006, and the fact that the number of active-duty generals has swelled from 750 to 1,100, Thailand’s military have become even more powerful since those books were published — not less.
King Bhumibol’s enduring hospitalisation
Not only are they blocked 90% of the time, New Mandala is now blocked on 3BB.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
As a resident of Isaan and living in the center of ‘red country’ I think I can say without fear of contradiction the love and respect for the royal family especially the King is as strong now as it ever was when I first started coming here over 20 years ago. For the Army chief to say that there is an anti monarchy, republican movement is utter nonsense. It is of course just a ploy to maintain a hard line against the ‘reds’.
The ‘red’ movement appears to be a strong as ever. The locals feel put down and frustrated, and therefore have ‘lost face’ which they bitterly resent. To say that this leads to anti monarchy I feel just isn’t true.
I feel that I should also add that they are very worried about His Majesty’s health.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
“Yet it is the generals who are really in charge of the Palace. ”
I am looking forward to reading a full substantiation of this statement.
Burma in Limbo, Part 3
Charles F.,
I’m sure you’ve seen on The Irrawaddy website the relentless rants by Myanmar Patriots or Idiot as some people call him, completely delusional and cheerily tilting at windmills. Cracks me up every time. With friends like these the SPDC hardly needs enemies.
You’re right about the West. All talk and no action whatever else goes on behind the scenes. The moment they hear ‘elections’ they go all weak in the knees. While Messrs plan B & MP are busy castigating the West, things will suddenly blow up in the SPDC’s face inside the country pretty soon I reckon.
Burma in Limbo, Part 3
Moe Aung,
Other than NGO’s and adventurers I never saw any overt effort to assist the anti-government forces in Burma. If there are any ongoing covert activities being conducted, well, they’re covert, and we’ll probably never hear about them. Perhaps plan B is privy to some information he’d like to share with the class.
plan B has this unshakable idea in his head that “The West” conspires relentlessly to overthrow the SPDC. All I ever see is a lot of hand wringing and talking. That doesn’t seem to be shaking the pillars of the SPDC.
On other websites I see him railing against a certain book writer and “tri-continental” soldier (cracks me up every time I read that). Perhaps this is what is setting him off. A lot of ado about nothing.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
This otherwise valid analysis is marred the usual clichéd revolutionary rant from Ji.
eg. :
1)”now a serious republican mood among millions of citizens.”
How can Ji possibly know this – in absence of a referendum ?
Also – he’s been outside Thailand for considerable time now – so his ability to know the current local scene has become limited.
2) “the revolutionary Peoples Party led by Pridi Panomyong relied too much on the Military rather than building a mass party to stage the revolution.”
Realistically – did Pridi have any choice – apart from the high-risk, very chancey strategy he adopted? Which included what now seem some pretty radical attempts : eg. nationalisations, State welfarism, land reform, and neutralism towards America’s build-up against Ho Chi Minh.
Pridi came to power through a small combination of bureaucrats and military, in a country which was one of the poorest and most backward socio-economically, in the world – and without much of that radicalisation generated by imperialism in almost every other Afro-Asian country.
Ji’s rant ignores this historical contxt.
3) Ji here continues treating the Military as if it is a unified monolith : it most certainly is n’t – as Ji himself has shown in some of his other, better writings.
The Red Shirts in Ayutthaya
Nick – further to your reporting that journalists invited to the briefing with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will have to submit their questions in advance – and that now Thai army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha has announced that no political (Red-Shirt) gatherings are allowed in the Thai capital during the visit but representatives can instead present a letter to the UN chief –
I’m sure many will find the General’s remarks extremely unnerving and worrisome. I’m almost inclined myself to put on a red shirt and go out and about just to defy his ‘authority’.
In short – the government will reduce his visit here to one big PR exercise for their benefit – instead of it being an open and free exercise in information gathering through talks with both government officials – Red-Shirt leaders – human rights organisations and interested media.
The fact that reporters will have their questions vetted in advance is obviously an attempt to shield him from any sensitive and embarrassing questions which would no doubt come his way concerning the government’s appalling human rights record and – more specifically – its treatment of Red-Shirt protesters earlier this year.
How dare those “pesky and nasty red-Shirts” stand-up to the sickening inequality – rampant corruption – and political and military oppression that now exists in this country and seek redress and attention from the UN Secretray-General.
The arrogance and contempt the authorities have for ordinary and decent Thai citizens who have very genuine and sincere reasons to protest the governments murderous actions – earlier this year – during Ban Ki-moon’s visit and hopefully attract his attention is ample evidence of the authoritarian tyranny that now exists in Thailand.
Ji Ungpakorn on the military and the monarchy
It’s equally impossible to measure and express, in cold numbers of statistics, the degree of love or hate afforded to King Bhumibol.
Similarly, it is rather unthinkable, for both Thais and foreigners living in Thailand and beyond, to back up Giles’ opinions in public or workplace without creeping fear of losing face, one’s standing in the society, freedom, and even life. On the other hand, demeaning comments are more than welcome. So much for democracy and freedom, Thai style.